This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution’s use of this evidence at Moira Akers’ trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers’ rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 19th, 2025 overturning Moira Akers’ conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence.

This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 - 67.3104, requires the disclosure of school board members’ social media posts on their private Facebook accounts relating to the propriety of a display of certain books in the school library. This case is among one of the first state supreme court cases addressing whether Facebook posts constitute records. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania attorney Brian Cagle, filed a brief arguing that RTKL’s text and structure require the conclusion that posts are “records,” and thus are subject to disclosure.

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.